U.S. Should Stay Out Of Syrian Conflict

(The above photo of the Syrian conflict is from The Guardian.)

The conflict in Syria, between government and anti-government forces, is one of the bloodiest wars currently being fought -- and both sides have been accused (and are probably guilty) of atrocities. For a while now there has been pressure being put on the United States government to arm the rebels, and some (both on the right and left) even want U.S. troops to intervene in the war against the Syrian government.

Recently the stakes have been raised -- as there have been reports that the Syrian government is guilty of using chemical weapons against the rebels (reports that the White House seems to believe). This is putting added pressure on the president to take some kind of action to support the rebels.

We need to be very careful about this though. No one has yet produced any definitive proof that chemical weapons have been used. And at least one member of the U.N. Commission investigating the matter (Carla Del Ponte) has said on the record that the rebels may have used sarin gas against government troops. The head of that commission has refused to verify that, saying that there is (at least so far) no evidence that either side has used poison gas or any other chemical weapons.

That means that those advocating starting another war (which like other recent conflicts may prove to be endless, since the rebels are composed of several factions that could go to war with each other if they could defeat the government) are currently just relying on rumors. And as we saw in Iraq, those rumors could be very wrong (remember all the "weapons of mass destruction" that Iraq was supposed to have?). This Syrian conflict is very complicated, and I'm not at all sure that anyone knows what is really going on.

The U.S. government would be making a serious mistake to get involved in another conflict at this time -- especially since we still can't seem to find a way out of the Afghan conflict. The last thing we need is another endless war, where the supposed "freedom fighters we are supposed to support may turn out to be trying to establish another muslim fundamentalist government that we couldn't get along with. This is a Syrian problem, and it can only be solved by the Syrian people. A U.S.-imposed solution by military power is almost guaranteed to be a failure.

Here is what the shadow cabinet created by the United States Green Party has to say on this matter:

The Obama administration has seemingly painted itself into yet another military corner by announcing that use of chemical weapons by Syria would constitute a red line that would mandate military action on the part of the United States. Now we are hearing reports that the red line may have been crossed, and some prominent officials are calling for the U.S. to step up its aid to the rebels and/or impose a no-fly zone. Proponents of military action such as Secretary of State John Kerry and hawkish Senator John McCain seem to think that the U.S. can sort out the “good guys” in the Syrian civil war, and use U.S. military assets to help the rebels take down the Assad government.

U.S. military involvement in Syria could only make things worse. Syria does not need a "no fly" zone. It needs a "no weaponizing" zone. The White House and its allies need to stop arming one side of a civil war, and to persuade Russia to stop arming the other. Further escalating the violence will result in nothing that could outweigh the damage of that violence.

The Netanyahu government in Israel has just raised the ante in this precarious situation by conducting air-to-ground missile attacks against Syria, undoubtedly with the tacit approval of the United States. Allowing Israel to attack Syria without consequences is not only the sanctioning of a crime; it also allows momentum to develop for greater violence and pushes peaceful resolution further out of reach. Diplomacy must be actively pursued before it is too late.

Further military interference in Syria would be a disastrous decision in important ways. For one thing, it is not at all clear if chemical weapons have been used, and if so, by which side. U.S. media has a tendency to turn conjecture into accepted fact merely by repeating it. Furthermore, the U.S. military has itself used  and continues to use chemical and nuclear weapons — Agent Orange and napalm in Vietnam and white phosphorus and depleted uranium weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ongoing hypocrisy of U.S. policy and practice in this regard undermines our nation’s international moral and legal position.

Secondly, there are few if any “good guys” among the combatants in Syria. Because the White House has decided that regime change in Syria is our business, Americans are now squarely allied with extremist anti-democratic insurgents—the same people the administration has deemed our enemy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As it has time after the time, the theory that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” will come back to bite the U.S. once Assad is out of office.  

Those who hold Libya up as an example of the kind of military action that should be taken in Syria don’t understand some very basic concepts. Syria’s air defense batteries are located in urban centers, not like Libya’s, which could be attacked without causing a high number of civilian casualties. If the U.S. targets urban centers in Syria, global opinion will quickly turn against us. Furthermore, the Assad government’s close relationship with major powers Russia and Iran could mean that a U.S. attack would lead to widespread war. An escalated U.S. war in Syria would not be waged simply on American terms. Those who advocate for military action don’t seem to understand the global response to our actions.

But the most basic reason that the U.S. should not interfere militarily in Syria is because we should support self-determination. It should be left to the Syrian people to decide who will run their government. Overthrowing foreign governments is not legal, moral, or practical.  It is not a safe practice to encourage. In fact, in nearly a century of warmaking, there is still no example of the United States or NATO having “liberated” a country to beneficial effect. Libya's violence is spilling into neighboring nations. Iraq is arguably in worse shape post-intervention than Syria is pre-intervention.

In the immediate term, the Green Shadow Cabinet calls on the United States government and the international community to provide humanitarian aid—food and shelter for those displaced, and assistance to countries that are providing safe haven for Syrian refugees. And the administration should invest in multilateral diplomatic efforts involving both Russia and Iran, as well as others, to push for a cease fire and an end to weapons shipments.

In the long term, we must win an international ban on weapons and war profiteering, which is a major factor in feeding the cycle of violence.

Will Saudi Arabia Turn Against The U.S. ?

Israel has been delaying any peace negotiations with the Palestinians for many years now. They are primarily doing this because with each month they delay they can steal more Palestinian land for Israeli settlements -- land they have no intention of ever parting with in negotiating a Palestinian State. In an effort to stop the stealing of their land and force a final settlement resulting in a country of their own, the Palestinians are taking their case to the United Nations this month.

They are asking the United Nations to recognize the Palestinian state as a country and give them a seat at the United Nations. Most of the countries in the Middle East support this, as do many other countries around the world. The nations of Europe are mostly on the fence, and haven't decided how they would vote in the General Assembly. But there is one country that stands as a roadblock to keep this from happening -- the United States. The United States has not only asked Palestine not to proceed with this, but they have threatened to cut off aid for them and to veto the measure when it makes it to the Security Council.

The United States may have thought they were operating from a position of power while making these threats, but it now looks like these moves (if the U.S. follows through with them) could cost the U.S. a powerful ally in the Middle East -- Saudi Arabia. Prince Turki al-Faisal, former head of Saudi Intelligence and former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and a member of the royal family, has written a scathing editorial in the New York Times. In it he says the U.S. could lose Saudi Arabia as an ally if it stops the statehood question in the United Nations. Here is some of what he had to say:

The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.


Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.


Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy. Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed, Saudi Arabia would pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States, including opposing the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq and refusing to open an embassy there despite American pressure to do so. The Saudi government might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen as well.


The Palestinian people deserve statehood and all that it entails: official recognition, endorsement by international organizations, the ability to deal with Israel on more equal footing and the opportunity to live in peace and security. . .


The Obama administration has had ample opportunities to lead Israelis and Palestinians into bilateral peace talks, but American policy makers have unfortunately been more preoccupied with a deteriorating domestic economy and a paralyzed political scene than with finding a workable solution to this epic injustice. Because Washington has offered no viable new proposals, the least it can do is step aside and not hinder Saudi, European and moderate Arab efforts to advance Palestinian rights at the United Nations. . .


Although Saudi Arabia is willing and able to chart a new and divergent course if America fails to act justly with regard to Palestine, the Middle East would be far better served by continuing cooperation and good will between these longstanding allies.


American support for Palestinian statehood is therefore crucial, and a veto will have profound negative consequences. In addition to causing substantial damage to American-Saudi relations and provoking uproar among Muslims worldwide, the United States would further undermine its relations with the Muslim world, empower Iran and threaten regional stability. Let us hope that the United States chooses the path of justice and peace.

Although he doesn't mention it specifically, Saudi Arabia could effectively end the era of cheap oil for the United States. Some of you may think that oil is already expensive, but it could get much worse if the Saudi's decide to punish the U.S. by playing games with the price and supply of oil -- and they have the power to do it. Without Saudi Arabia as a cheap supplier of oil and as a moderating influence on other Arab nations, the U.S. could find itself in a much worse position -- both in the Middle East and at home.

Will the United States government pay heed to this warning? Probably not. Our foreign policy in the Middle East has been dictated by Israel for far too long. The U.S. will probably exercise that veto, and then things could get very messy.

Intervention In Libya Seems To Be Working

There has been a lot of discussion over the United Nations intervention in Libya in the last few days. Some want to paint it as a new war by the United States (even though most actual air flights have been flown by French and British troops, while the United States mainly used cruise missiles to knock out radar installations and command& control sites). Others counter that we should have struck sooner and unilaterally. Frankly, I think both sides are wrong.

It would have been a serious mistake for the United States to unilaterally intervene in Libya. It needed to be a United Nations effort with the bulk of the fighting shared among several nations (including at least some Arab nations), and that is exactly what has happened. Although the U.S. took the initial lead in the operation, control will now be handed off to NATO in a couple of days.

If intervention had occurred any sooner, the rebel uprising (which truly is a Libyan uprising) could have easily blamed on Western nations. If it had happened any later, it is doubtful that the rebels could have survived the vicious attack by the Libyan military (which was pounding them with air strikes, tanks, and artillery). It looks like the United Nations intervened at exactly the right time.

Once the French started destroying Libyan army tanks and artillery, and the rest of the coalition made sure the Libyan air force was out of the fight, the odds were evened and the rebels began to once again seize the advantage. They were able to save Benghazi and retake Ajdabiya. Now they have moved west and also retaken Ras Lanuf and Brega. This gives the rebels control over most of Libya's oil fields -- a situation that Kaddafi cannot allow to exist if he is to remain in power for long.

But the fighting is far from over. The rebels are pushing west while the Libyan army retreats (leaving their armor and artillery behind, smoking and destroyed). But the rebel hold on Misrata is still tenuous, and the rebels must take Sirte (Kaddafi's home town) before they can help out with Misrata. And it is expected the fighting in Sirte could be very bloody.

Even if Sirte is taken and Misrata saved, the fighting would not be over. The endgame is surely to be played out in Tripoli -- Libya's capital and largest city. And it's anybody's guess as to what will happen there. The population of that city could rise up and throw Kaddafi out, or they could settle in for a long and protracted and very bloody battle. Only time will tell.

But for now, the intervention of the United Nations is working. The rebels have the initiave once again. It looks like Kaddafi's days may be numbered. But the U.N. is doing all it can or should do. Now it's up to the rebels. And we'll just have to wait and see if they can finish what they started.

Objective Not To Remove Kadaffi ?

The United Nations "no-fly zone" has been established in Libya, and it looks like the "other necessary measures" are also being pursued. Radar and Command & Control sites have been attacked by cruise missiles (over 200 of them) and French planes have taken out some tanks attacking rebel positions.

So far it looks like the United States has taken the lead in the action. I think that was probably to be expected, especially with the removal of radar and other sites by missiles. But care needs to be taken that this doesn't turn into a third American war on a muslim nation. The action was approved by the United Nations and must remain a U.N. action.

The president and Secretary of Defense Gates have both said that within a few days the United States will hand over primary control of the operation to other U.N. forces -- probably Great Britain and France. They have also ruled out sending ground forces into Libya. I hope they are telling the truth on both counts. I think the U.N. needed to act in Libya, but the U.S. doesn't need another major war on its hands.

Having said the above, I must also say that the recent remark by Joint Chiefs of Staff head Admiral Mullen is rather stupid. He said that the purpose of the mission was not to remove Kadaffi from power. What else could be the objective? Surely we don't want to maintain the status quo -- a divided country in the midst of a civil war, with Kadaffi still in power and controlling Libyan oil. That would be a worse outcome than just staying out and letting Kadaffi solidify his position again.

The only legitimate reason for the U.N. action is to help remove Kadaffi from power. And once he is removed from power, he should be tried and convicted and spend the rest of his life in prison for ordering the bombing of the airliner in Lockerbie, Scotland. This should have happened many years ago.

Allowing Kadaffi to remain in power is not an option, especially now that the United Nations has attacked the country. he must be removed from power. Anything short of that would be a dismal and complete failure.

U.S. Supports U.N. Gay Rights Declaration

Last December, the Bush administration once again proved they really didn't believe in human rights, especially if it might upset the bigots in their right-wing base. Bush made the United States the only Western government to not sign a United Nations declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

The declaration was signed by Japan, Mexico, Australia, all 27 European Union members and over 30 other countries, but not by the United States. Well, that is changing. Sources within the Obama administration say the United States will now sign the declaration and has asked to be added as a sponsor. As soon as Congress has been notified, the announcement will be made.

An anonymous administration official said, "The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world. As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora."

He went on to say, "In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom'."

Thank goodness George Bush is gone, and the United States can once again be a leader in establishing human rights around the world.